№3(71)/2013 Серия филология
жүктеу/скачать 1,09 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
obadva elementa borila kao zla svekrva sa dobrom snahom(Njegoš, 1981, p. 203, emphasis mine). Those ruins of great Rome. When man comes there, he does not know if he goes into raptures of admi- ration, or sorrow will dampen his soul and sadden him over the tomb of world greatness. Really, those two
A very interesting example of such ambivalent attitude to the Roman ruins is a fragment of Zygmunt Krasiński’s letter to his father: Ruiny, ślady przemocy, potęgi i ucisku teraz leżą w błocie i glinie. Kampania Rzymska jest szeroką mogiłą opasaną Apeninami, nagą, bez krzewu, bez drzewa, zielona rzadką murawą, z niebem wiecznie błękitnym, z słońcem podobnym do słońca pustyni; tu i ówdzie pasą się trzody nad grobem wielkich mężów (Krasiński, 1963, p. 236). Ruins, traces of violence, power and oppression now lay in mud and clay. Roman Campagna is a wide grave rounded by the Apennines, bare, without bushes, without trees, with thin layers of grass and eter- nally blue sky, with the Sun like the desert Sun. Here and there, flocks graze over a tomb of great people. In Njegoš’s letter, admiration for the magnificent heritage of Rome is mixed with sorrow over its de- parted greatness. In Krasiński’s letter, ruins are simultaneously the sign of power and crime, of might and decay *
A comparison of those two statements shows some valid points about the romantic attitude towards Roman ruins. To examine this problem thoroughly, various research concepts should be taken into account. Radosław Piętka emphasizes an interesting ambivalence towards the Roman ruins(Piętka, 2003). On the one hand, they are a symbol of human fragility and of the inevitable law of temporality. On the other hand, they demonstrate the might of ancient civilizations. However, in both cases, man is overwhelmed by the power of time and by the greatness of the ancient heritage. Chloe Chard analyses ‘ghosts and ruins as repositories of memory in travel writings’ (Chard, 1999, p. 127). In late 18 th century and 19 th -century writings, ruins are often connected with nights and ghosts. There is theghost of a lost mistress who might appear, supernatural beings manifest themselves, and suppressed memories return. Ruins are the space for the uncanny and alienated. Duncan Kennedy pays attention to the temporal perspective of ruin writings (Kennedy, 1991). In his de- scription of Roman ruins, reflexions on the past of Rome are juxtaposed with the narrator’s present time and thoughts about the future (which was already demonstrated in Nenadović’s and Krasiński’s works). Grażyna Królikiewicz gives acomprehensive analysis of the romantic image of ruins (Królikiewicz, 1993). The researcher points to the ambivalence and complexity of this topic in the literature and paintings of the Romantic period. Ruins have a dual nature because they are simultaneouslya part of nature and culture. They are at the same time new entities and fragments of the past. What is more, ruins introduce some herme- neutical problems, because they are perceived as a semiotic object, as a sign of the past. Meditations on re- mains of ancient buildings also show the mechanism of memory and imagination. As traces of the past, ruins are used to introduce topics from the field of the philosophy of history, which was already demonstrated by examples taken from Nenadović and Krasiński. Ruins could also be perceived as an aesthetic object. For the anticlassicist movement, ruins were an example of the picturesque and sublime, because decayed buildings were more interesting than the classical beauty of perfection. It should also bepointed out that ruins were an important element of Rome, also for the ancient writers. For example, Marcus Terentius Varro described the Saturnian remains, visible on the Palatine, and in Eneida * In general, Krasiński’s views on ancient Rome and Christianity were full of ambivalence,see Śliwiński (1986). Images of Rome in Polish and Serbian literature ... Серия «Филология». № 3(71)/2013 23 Aeneas observed on the same hill ‘monuments of earlier man’(Edwards, 1996, p. 11). Consequently, looking at Rome through the prism of ruins had been done from the very beginning. Among all the ruins of Rome, the Coliseum is the most famous. Njegoš named this building as the most interesting sight in Rome, along with Saint Peter’s Basilica and Raphael’s painting Transfiguration(Njegoš, 1981, p. 204). In the description of this place, some common, important motives appear which show how the ruins of Rome tend toacquire ideological value. In writings about the remains of the Flavian Amphitheatre, the aforementioned complex of ideas, con- nected with ruins and the philosophy of history, is present. Ljubomir Nenadović comparedthe Coliseumto the corpse of a giant and with satisfaction emphasized that in the ancient times this building had beenat the cen- tre of Rome while in the 19 th century it was outside the city. The Flavian Amphitheatre was often used to introduce the topic of games in the arena and Christian martyrdom. Among the notes of Njegoš about Rome and ancient civilisation, remarks about games are very common (Njegoš, 1956) * . It is one of the most important topics in nineteenth century writings about ancient Roman culture. A description of bloody entertainment was often used to stereotype the Romans as a nation of primitive, brutal conquerors, with cruel soldiers in foreign countries and bloodthirsty spectators of gladia- tor games at home. This connection between Roman imperialism and arena games is underlined by the fact that wild beasts for games were brought from subdued lands † , that amphitheatres were built by slaves, and that people killed during games were often slaves from conquered nations ‡ . Thirdly, the Coliseumwas often presented as a symbol of the triumph of Christianity. The most impor- tant reason for this interpretation of the ruins of the Flavian Amphitheatre was the fact that in the centre of the circus, where Christians had been killed in the ancient times, a wooden crossstood tall. The Roman Em- pire felt and Rome became the Papal city. The cross in the Coliseum was very important especially for Krasiński. The Polish poet, at his first visit to Rome, was disappointed by Saint Peter’s Basilica § . In the letter ter to his father, he claimed that at the basilica men thought too much about human artand there is no real Christian spirit in the church (Krasiński, 1963, p. 215). However, the cross in the Coliseum was the real cen- tre of Christian faith for Krasiński ** . Ten krzyż wart wszystkich kościołów Mediolanu i Rzymu. Przezeń żywiej Bóg przemawia niż przez sklepienia złotem, srebrem, drogimi kamieniami zasute. Ten krzyż temu tysiąc lat, taki sam jak dzisiaj, deptany był w tych miejscach, za niego rzucano tygrysom i lwóm chrześcijańskie dziewice. Wtenczas Koliseum stało wielkie, pyszne (…); a teraz rozsypuje się on w gruzy i upada, a krzyż się nie odmienił, z drewna jak wtenczas, a jednak stoi pośród budowy, stoi nad ziemią, która go prześladowała, i panuje tam, gdzie nim pogardzano (Krasiński, 1963, p. 216). This cross is worth all the churches of Milan and Rome. Through it, God speaks more lively than through vaults full of gold, silver and precious stones. This cross, one thousand years ago, the same as today, was trampled at these places. For it, Christian virgins were thrown to the tigers and lions. That time, the Co- liseum was great, haughty (…) and now it is crumbling and falling, while the cross has not changed, made of wood like that time, and stays in this building, over the country which was persecuting it. As Krasiński’s words show, for the image of Rome in romantic literature it is very important that Rome is not only the capital of an ancient empire, but is also the place of the Holy See. However, this topic is linkedto a number of other questions related tothe romantic attitude towards religion and Christianity as well as relations between Orthodox and Catholic churches, issues that are well beyond the scope of this paper. To recapitulate the most important problems mentioned in this article, one poem, which evokes a great number of issues, will now be analysed. Juliusz Słowacki’s ††
decayed space of ruins and meadows, which was compared to a desert: * On ancient topics in the notes of Njegoš, see Flašar (1997, p. 253–304). † About animals in the context of Roman games, see Śliwiński (1992, p. 201–204). ‡ It is interesting to compare statements made about the Coliseum with similar remarks made by another Serbian traveller, Mi- lan Jovanović Morski (1834-1896) about the ancient amphitheatre in Naples (Jovanović, 1898, p. 56). However, the question of whether Jovanović belongs to the Romantic period is a problematic issue (Tartalja, 1984). § He shared this feeling with Njegoš, who wrote a poem on the cupola of Saint Peter’s Basilica Radi čovjek sve što radit može . In the first part of the poem, the lyrical voice admires the magnificence of the church. However, in the second part, the Basilica is compared with dust, because it is only a creation of weak human beings. The real temple of God is the cosmos. ** About Krasiński’s religious anxiety, see Przybylski (1999, p. 23–37). †† Juliusz Słowacki [1809-1849] is considered one of the greatest poets of Polish literature. He wrote many interesting dramas and poems (Kordian, Balladyna, Beniowski, Król-Duch, etc). In his lifetime, he was overshadowed by Mickiewicz; however, he is now perceived as a great rival of the older poet. He visited Rome in 1836. T.Ewertowski 24
Вестник Карагандинского университета Nagle mię trącił płacz na pustym błoniu:/ ‘Rzymie! nie jesteś ty już dawnym Rzymem’./ Tak śpiewał pasterz trzód siedząc na koniu/ Przede mną mroczne błękitnawym dymem/ Sznury pałaców pod Apeninami,/ Nad nimi kościół ten, co jest olbrzymem./ Za mną był morski brzeg i nad falami/ Okrętów tłum jako łabędzie stado,/ Które ogarnął sen pod ruinami./ I zdjął mię wielki płacz, gdy tą gromadą/ Poranny zachwiał wiatr i pędził daléj/ Jakby girlandę dusz w błękitność bladą./ I zdjął mię wielki strach, gdy poznikali/ Ci aniołowie fal — a ja zostałem/ W pustyni sam — z Rzymem, co już się wali./ I nigdy w życiu takich łez nie lałem,/ Jak wtenczas — gdy mię spytało w pustyni/ Słońce, szydzący bóg — czy Rzym widziałem? (Słowacki, 2005, p. 113). Suddenly, a cry of sorrow touched me on the empty meadow:/ ‘Rome! You are not old Rome any- more’,/ a shepherd on a horse was singing it./ In front of me, dim with blue smoke,/ a string of palaces [standing] on the foot of the Apennines/ above them [palaces] was the church… a giant./ The shore was be- hind me,/ and a fleet of ships in waves, like a flock of swans,/ were seized with sleep under the ruins./ And then tears overcame me, when this flock [of ships]/ were moved by a wind, and [a wind] drove them far away/ as a garland of souls into wan blueness./ And fear overcame me, when they [ships] disappeared,/ those angels of the waves — And I was left alone/ in the desert — with Rome, which was collapsing./ And I have never in my life shed such tears/ as then, when in the desert/ the Sun, a deriding God, asked me, if I had seen Rome.
The poem is a variation on the theme of the famous elegy by the sixteenth-century Sicilian humanist Janus Vitalis, very popular in Polish and European literature (Graciotti, 1991; Zarucchi, 2013). The main topic of the poem is a feeling of alienation and fragility in being confronted with ruins (Inglot, 2002; Kuczera-Chachulska, 2002; Mikołajczak, 2002; Zgorzelski, 1980). The image of Rome in the poem is sub- jective, metaphorical and emotional. Three elements are contrasted: 1) contemporary Rome with palaces and Saint Peter’s Basilica; 2) ancient ruins in decay; 3) ships on a shore. According to Czesław Zgorzelski, there is strong opposition in the poem: a static Rome and a dynamic movement of ships that make the lyrical voice cry (Zgorzelski, 1980, p. 28). Ships may be a symbol of ‘reserves of imagination’ (Foucault, 2005, p.124). When they disappear, the lyrical voice is overcome with sadness, because Rome, in the past the greatest city on earth, is now in decay, is ‘collapsing’. As demonstrated above, among the ruins of Rome poets felt over- whelmed by a feeling of inevitable fragility. In this context, it should be noted that the lyrical voice meets two ‘characters’. The first is the shepherd. According to researchers, this person introduces a contrast be- tween the old Rome, imperial city, now in ruins, and present-day Rome, which is inhabited by peasants and in decay.The second ‘character’ is a symbolic one — the Sun, ‘a deriding god’. According to Chloe Chard, ruins are repositories of the unconscious and supernatural and such is the case with Słowacki’s poem. It should also be pointed out that the Sun appears in a place described as ‘the desert’. Rome, which used to be the capital of an empire, the city of the gods (Edwards, 1996, p. 44–68), the centre of Catholicism, is de- scribed in the poem as the desert where ‘a deriding God’ reveals itself. The final question (‘Have I seen Rome?’) and the lyrical voice’s tears introduce a contrast between the overwhelming power of time and na- ture (symbolized by the deriding Sun) and the fragility of human deeds and achievements that are even as magnificent as Rome itself.
This work was supported by the National Centre of Science (Project 2011/03/N/HS2/01724, Decision- Number DEC-2011/03/N/HS2/01724) and by a Scholarship of the Foundation of Adam Mickiewicz Univer- sity.
Bibliography 1 Bassin, M. Inventing Siberia: Visions of the Russian East in the early nineteenth century. American Historical Review, (1991), 96(3), 763–794. 2 Biliński, B. Norwid w Rzymie. In M. Żmigrodzka (Ed.), Cyprian Norwid w 150-lecie urodzin. Materiały konferencji nauko- wej 23–25 września 1871, 1973, p. 151–195, Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. 3 Burkot, S. Polskie podróżopisarstwo romantyczne. Warszawa: PWN, 1988. 4 Chard, C. The road to ruin: memory, ghosts, moonlight and weeds. In C.Edwards (Ed.), Roman presences. Receptions of
5 Edwards, C. Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 6 Fiećko, J. Rosja Krasińskiego. Rzecz o nieprzejednaniu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2005.
Images of Rome in Polish and Serbian literature ... Серия «Филология». № 3(71)/2013 25 7 Fieguth, R. Od „Pompei» do „Quidama». Z problemów klasycyzmu norwidowskiego. In K.Meller (Ed.), Klasycyzm. Estetyka — doktryna literacka — antropologia, 2009, p. 345–374. Warszawa: NERITON. 8 Flašar, M. Njegoš i antika. (M.Babović, Ed.). Podgorica: Institut imeni Njegoša, 1997. 9 Foucault, M. Inne przestrzenie. Teksty Drugie, (6), 2005, р. 117–125. 10 Goethe, J. W. Italian Journey. (W.H.Auden & E.Mayer, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1970. 11 Graciotti, S. Losy jednej z elegii Giana Vitalego, czyli ruiny Rzymu w polskiej poezji. In W.Jekiel, J.Rogoziński, & G.Błachowicz (Trans.), Od Renesansu do Oświecenia, Warszawa: PIW, 1991, p. 139–158. 12 Inglot, M. „Rzym» — elegia dramatyczna Juliusza Słowackiego. Nie tylko o „Kordianie». Studia nad twórczoscia Juliusza
13 Janion, M. Zygmunt Krasiński. Debiut i dojrzałość. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1962. 14 Jezernik, B. Dzika Europa. Bałkany w oczach zachodnich podróżników. (P.Oczko, Trans.). Kraków: Universitas, 2007. 15 Jovanović, M. Gore dole po Napulju. Putničke crte. Beograd, Zagreb: Srpska književna zadruga, 1898. 16 Kennedy, D. F.A sense of place: Rome, history and empire revisited. In C.Edwards (Ed.), Roman presences. Receptions of
17 Kilibarda, V. Njegoš i Italija. In S.Tomović (Ed.), Enciklopedija Njegoš 1. Podgorica: Fondacija Njegoš, CID, 1999, p. 161– 169. 18 Kilibarda, V. Njegoševo poslednje putovanje: kroz Italiju 1850−1851. Lingua Montenegrina, (9), 2012, р. 151–172. 19 Krasiński, Z. Listy do ojca. (S.Pigoń, Ed.). Warszawa: PIW, 1963. 20 Krasiński, Z. (a). Dzieła literackie. T. 1. (P.Hertz, Ed.). Warszawa: PIW, 1973. 21 Krasiński, Z. (b). Dzieła literackie. T. 3. (P.Hertz, Ed.). Warszawa: PIW, 1973. 22 Królikiewicz, G. Terytorium ruin. Ruina jako obraz i temat romantyczny. Kraków: Universitas, 1993. 23 Kuczera-Chachulska, B. „Płacz» Słowackiego. Liryczna wartość motywu. Przemiany form i postaw elegijnych w liryce pols-
im. Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, 2002. 24 Kuźma, E. Mit Orientu i kultury Zachodu w literaturze XIX i XX wieku. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej w Szczecinie, 1980. 25 Litwornia, A. Rzym Mickiewicza: poeta nad Tybrem 1829–1831. Warszawa: Prószyński — S-ka, 2005. 26 Mickiewicz, A. Dzieła. T. 14. Listy, część pierwsza 1815‒1829. (M.Dernałowicz, E.Jaworska, & M.Zielińska, Eds.). Wars- zawa: Czytelnik, 1998. 27 Mickiewicz, A. Dzieła. T. 17. Listy, część czwarta 1849‒1855. (M.Dernałowicz, E.Jaworska, & M.Zielińska, Eds.). Wars- zawa: Czytelnik, 2005. 28 Mikołajczak, M. Rzym neoklasycystyczny Jarosława Marka Rymkiewicza w kontekście wiersza „Rzym» Juliusza Słowackiego. In M.Kuziak (Ed.), Juliusz Słowacki. Wyobraźnia i egzystencja (p. 315–326). Słupsk: Pomorska Akademia Pedago- giczna w Słupsku, 2002. 29 Mocarska-Tycowa, Z. Rzym antyczny i Kampania Rzymska w malarstwie romantycznym. In M.Kalinowska & B.Paprocka- Podlasiak (Eds.), Antyk romantyków — model europejski i wariant polski: rekonesans, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Grado, 2003, p. 593–603. 30 Nenadović, L. Pisma iz Italije. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1907. 31 Njegoš, P. Njegoševa bilježnica. (J.Jovanović, Ed.). Cetinje: Istoriski institut, 1956. 32 Njegoš, P. Celokupna dela VI. Izabrana pisma. (N.Banašević, V.Latković, & J.Milović, Eds.) (9th ed.). Beograd: Prosveta, Obod, 1981. 33 Norwid, C. Pisma wszystkie. T. 7. Proza, część wtorek. (J.W.Gomulicki, Ed.). Warszawa: PIW, 1973. 34 Piętka, R. „Terminus». Rzym jako symbol trwałości i przemijania, 2003. Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et
35 Piętka, R. Hellenizacja i deromanizacja. Dylematy dziewiętnastowiecznej refleksji o antyku. In E.Wesołowska (Ed.), Ro- mantyczna „antiquitas». Rzymskie inspiracje w teatrze i dramacie XIX wieku z uwzględnieniem mediacji calderonowskiej i szekspi- rowskiej Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2007, p. 9–18. 36 Pižurica, K. Mediteranski motivi u Njegoševom djelu. Letopis Matice srpske, 461(3), 1998, р. 582–605. 37 Popović, M. Istorija srpske književnosti. Romantizam 2. Beograd: Nolit, 1972. 38 Przybylski, R. Rozhukany koń: esej o myśleniu Juliusza Słowackiego. Warszawa: Sic!, 1999. 39 Said, E. W. Orientalism. London: Penguin, 1977. 40 Słowacki, J. Wiersze. Nowe wydanie krytyczne. (J.Brzozowski & Z.Przychodniak, Eds.). Poznan: UAM, 2005. 41 Stefanowska, Z. Norwidowski romantyzm. Strona romantyków. Studia o Norwidzie. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Kato- lickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1993. 42 Stuparević, O. Srpski putopis o Italiji. In N.Stipčević (Ed.), Uporedna israživanja 1 (p. 103–181). Beograd: Institut za književnost i umetnost, 1976. 43 Śliwiński, M. Antyk i chrześcijaństwo w twórczości Zygmunta Krasińskiego. Słupsk: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Słupsku, 1986. 44 Śliwiński, M. Norwid wobec antyczno-średniowiecznej tradycji uniwersalizmu europejskiego. Słupsk: Wyższa Szkoła Peda- gogiczna w Słupsku, 1992. 45 Tartalja, I. Jedan zaboravljen majstor srpske proze iz perioda ranog realizma. Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane, Zbor-
T.Ewertowski 26
Вестник Карагандинского университета 46 Todorova, M. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 47 Trybuś, K. Stary poeta. Studia o Norwidzie. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2000. 48 Trybuś, K. Norwidowski klasycyzm — zarys problemu. In K.Meller (Ed.), Klasycyzm. Estetyka — doktryna literacka — an- tropologia, Warszawa: NERITON, 2009, p. 375–390. 49 Waśko, A. Zygmunt Krasiński. Oblicza poety. Kraków: Arcana, 2001. 50 Wolff, L. Inventing Eastern Europe. The map of civilization on the mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994. 51 Zarucchi, J. M. Du Bellay, Spenser, and Quevedo Search for Rome: A Teacher ’ s Peregrination. The French Review, 71(2), 2013, р. 192–203. 52 Zgorzelski, C.Rzym. In S.Makowski (Ed.), Juliusza Słowackiego rym błyskawicowy. Analizy i interpretacje Warszawa: Wy- dawnictwo Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, 1980, p. 26–30. 53 Zieliński, B. Njegoš u srpskom i crnogorskom književnom i kulturnom kanonu. In T.Bečanović, R.Glušica, & M.Ivanović (Eds.), Njegoševi dani 1. Zbornik radova sa međunarodnog slavističkog naučnog skupa, 2005, pp. 9–25. Nikšić: Univerzitet Crne Gore, Filozofski fakultet. 54 Ziemba, K. Rzym Mickiewicza (wokół listu Adama Mickiewicza do Marii Mickiewiczówny z 19 grudnia 1851 roku). In M.Kalinowska & B.Paprocka-Podlasiak (Eds.), Antyk romantyków — model europejski i wariant polski: rekonesans, 2003, pp. 172– 194. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Grado. 55 Živančević-Sekeruš, I. Kako (o) pisati različitost. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, 2009. Т.Эвертовски жүктеу/скачать 1,09 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|